Modular System-Level Modeling Method for the Susceptibility Prediction of Balise Information Transmission System
, Yinghong Wen 1,2,*, Jinbao Zhang 1,2,*, Jianjun Xiao 1,2, Yali Song 1,2 and Qi Geng 1,2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper describes a new methodology to predict the electro-magnetic susceptibility of BTM systems. The paper is well made and the methodology is very good. But, the authors should describe more in detail the novelty of the proposed methodology with respect to the state of the art.
It concerns the interference of the other equipment of the train with the Balise Transmission Module the above mentioned interference results in a wrong circulation of the train, which can be very dangerous.
The paper's topic is a new modeling method is proposed to predict the electro-magnetic susceptibility of BTM systems. This method is original and new.
So, the paper can be accepted after the above mentioned major revisions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This interesting paper describes an EMC system-level method of analysis of a balise in a train. However, the quality of the manuscript can be highly improved in my opinion after replying to this major comments (and after correcting the paper accordingly to my minor comments too).
Major comments :
My main comment / question concerns the fact that a complete system-level is shown in Fig 4 and this is claimed to be the most important contribution of the paper (as it is written in the title). However, after a rapid analysis, it is concluded that this system can be highly simplified (in figure 8).
More information is required in Fig 6. Are these results obtained in Max/Hold mode? After averaging ? The x and y axis are also different in Fig 6 a and b.
The comparison between fig 6 a and fig 7 is also not clear. What is the main conclusion? The related sentence in the text is unclear (“the disturbance levels are almost …).
In section 3.1, the influence of the simplification of the excitation as a purely sinusoidal excitation is not discussed at all.
Minor comments :
About figure 1 : what is, for curiosity, the typical distance between two successive balises in the rail?
Figure 2.b. is quite unclear. What is the contact zone?
Eq 8 : the signal are purely real? Ps is written in the general way with ½ real (V.I*).
Figure 18 : is the red signal averaged?
There is also too many significant digits in the numbers mentioned, for instance 77.76 dBuV.
What I means massage in Fig 19?
The quality of the English language can be improved. There is numerous sentences quite strange in reason of errors on the selected verb. Some examples below :
Page 2 : “will be come out…”
Numerous times in the paper, we have something like this : “radiation coupling module and conductive coupling module and inductive coupling module”. Tjhis kind of sentence is better like this : radiation, conductive and inductive coupling modules…”
Page 3 : received by receiving antenna of on-board antenna ???
Page 7 : “impendence” => impedance
Page 8 : “the disturbance would be coupled with the on-board antenna due to the on-board antenna…”
Page 12 : “after decoding by the decoding “
page 13 : “there is one thing need to be note”
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper can now be accepted in present form.
Author Response
Thanks. We check the spell and improve the quality of the English language.
Reviewer 2 Report
I have to say that it is quite disturbing to have to review a paper without a document replying to the reviewer comments. It means a lot of time lost by the reviewer.
It seems that some of my comments (but not all) have been addressed by the authors. The quality of the English language is still insufficient in many points. I think that it would have been a good idea to take more days to submit the revised version of this paper.
Some examples (in red text only) :
page 2 : what means “electromagnetic characters” ? Electromagnetic characteristics ?
And the objects with the same function is (=> are)
page 6 : is used to instead => ?
page 7 : the two most serious disturbance is
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments in Round 2
Point 1: I have to say that it is quite disturbing to have to review a paper without a document replying to the reviewer comments. It means a lot of time lost by the reviewer.
Response 1: Thanks for reminding me. In case you could not find our replying document again, we ask editor Lynn Yang for help. we copy the text of our cover letter to author's notes part directly and upload the document at the same time. Hoping you could find it in this time.
Point 2: It seems that some of my comments (but not all) have been addressed by the authors. The quality of the English language is still insufficient in many points. I think that it would have been a good idea to take more days to submit the revised version of this paper.
Some examples (in red text only) :
page 2 : what means “electromagnetic characters” ? Electromagnetic characteristics ?
And the objects with the same function is (=> are)
page 6 : is used to instead => ?
page 7 : the two most serious disturbance is
Response 2: Thanks. In this time, we do a lot of work to improve our English writing.
In page 2 : We change“electromagnetic characters”to Electromagnetic characteristics
“And the objects with the same function is ...” is changed to “And the objects with the same function are utilized to classify and integrate in a module model according to the concept of object-oriented technology and the modular method [20]”
In page 6 : “is used to instead...” is changed to “An impedance of 50Ω is used to take the place of BTM antenna, then the disturbance is measured by the spectrum analyzer in zero span mode.”
In page 7 : “the two most serious disturbance is...” is change to “For railway system, the two most serious disturbances are generated from traction power system.”
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments in Round 1
Point 1: My main comment / question concerns the fact that a complete system-level is shown in Fig 4 and this is claimed to be the most important contribution of the paper (as it is written in the title). However, after a rapid analysis, it is concluded that this system can be highly simplified (in figure 8).
Response 1: Thanks. Of course, the Fig. 4 shows the most important contribution of the paper. It is a modular system-level modeling method. This modeling method has two characteristics. One is the input and output of the module are concerned but the internal characteristics are ignored. The other one is the module could be used alone according to requirements for practical problems. For example, if the voltages of Sr1 and Sr3 are small enough, we could assume Vr1 and Vr3 equal to zero. Thus, the modules for radiation disturbance, conduction disturbance, radiation and conduction coupling could be ignored and the system could be highly simplified.
We add the explain in our paper: “Based on the analysis above, the influence of radiation disturbance and conductive disturbance could be ignored. Thus, it is assumed that the voltages of Sr1 and Sr3 in Fig. 4 equal to zero. The modules for radiation and conducted disturbance could be ignored. For modular system-level modeling method in the paper, the module could be utilized alone according to requirements for practical problems. Thus, BTM EMS prediction model could be simplified as induction disturbance, induction coupling and sensitive equipment modules, shown in Figure 8.”
Point 2: More information is required in Fig 6. Are these results obtained in Max/Hold mode? After averaging ? The x and y axis are also different in Fig 6 a and b.
Response 2: Thanks. We check the measurement again, these results obtained by the spectrum analyzer in zero span mode. We modified the Fig. 6 and Fig.7 with the same x and y axis.
Point 3: The comparison between fig 6 a and fig 7 is also not clear. What is the main conclusion? The related sentence in the text is unclear (“the disturbance levels are almost …).
Response 3: The main conclusion is that the main disturbance does not come from the pantograph off-line disturbance, but induces from traction return current flowing on the steel rails and some other disturbance from traction power system.
We add the explain in our paper: “For railway system, the two most serious disturbances are generated from traction power system. One is pantograph off-line disturbance when the train passes through phase separation zones, and the other one is traction return current. In order to confirm the main disturbance source, a further field tests have been done. “Antenna Connection” setup is taken when the train is in a normal operational situation. In this situation, traction return current is considered to be the main disturbance source. And the disturbance received by the on-board antenna is shown in figure 7. The disturbance levels are almost the same with the result in Figure 6 (a) which is obtained with pantograph off-line disturbance. Thus, the main disturbance does not come from the pantograph off-line disturbance, but induces from traction return current flowing on the steel rails and some other disturbance from traction power system.”
Point 4: In section 3.1, the influence of the simplification of the excitation as a purely sinusoidal excitation is not discussed at all.
Response 4: These disturbance currents could be pure sinusoidal continuous wave, transient, damped oscillation typology. Using Fourier series, all of this disturbance could be described as a superposition of sinusoidal waves with different frequencies. Thus, to simplify the modeling process, pure sinusoidal continuous wave disturbance shall be applicable.
Point 5: About figure 1 : what is, for curiosity, the typical distance between two successive balises in the rail?
Response 5: In China railway industry standard TB/T 3485-2017, the minimum distances between two successive balises are prescriptive.
For 180km/h railway line, the minimum distances between the centre of two successive balises should be more than 2.3m.
For 300km/h railway line, the minimum distances between the centre of two successive balises should be more than 3m.
For 500km/h railway line, the minimum distances between the centre of two successive balises should be more than 5m.
Point 6: Figure 2.b. is quite unclear. What is the contact zone?
Response 6: contact zone is the Main Lobe Zone of the balise. We modified the expression in our paper and replace contact zone with Main Lobe Zone of the balise.
Point 7: Eq 8 : the signal are purely real? Ps is written in the general way with ½ real (V.I*).
Response 7: Thank. We modified the Eq.8 and Eq. 9. For explain the issue, we added the explanation in our paper: “To ensure the signal transmission performance, Rs and RBTM are set to 50 Ω. V2_eff and Vr2_eff are the effective values of V2 and Vr2. ”
Point 8: Figure 18 : is the red signal averaged?
Response 8: The red signal is not averaged. It is the real disturbance from exhaust system when the system is shut down.
Point 9: There is also too many significant digits in the numbers mentioned, for instance 77.76 dBuV.
Response 9: Thanks. We modified the description and delate some numbers. Only significant numbers is retained in the current description.
The description is modified as “When the exhaust system starts before the BTM system, the SNR is -2.16dB at 3.95MHz and 10.57dB at 4.512MHz. They all smaller than the critical condition T (SNR=13.5dB). Thus, the on-line transmission self-test fails and BTM system will not start. As a result, the train cannot operate either.
When BTM system starts first without exhaust system, the noise is low, and the smallest SNR is 16.43dB at 3.95MHz (the disturbance source level is 40dBμV when exhaust system is powered off). Comparing to the critical condition T, the BTM system will pass on-line transmission self-test and start normally. During Data Reception function, the BTM useful signal is much higher than the noise. When the exhaust system started, the smallest SNR is 19.17dB which is still larger than 13.5dB. Therefore, the train could continue to operate normally.”
Point 10: What I means massage in Fig 19?
Response 10: We don't quite sure what you want to ask. We guess maybe Fig 19 confuse you. We divide the Fig 19 into two figures. (a) is block diagram for device connection and (b) is experimental setup in semi-anechoic chamber
Point 11: The quality of the English language can be improved. There is numerous sentences quite strange in reason of errors on the selected verb. Some examples below :
Page 2 : “will be come out…”
Response 11: Thank, we improved the English language, especially for verb selection.
“will be come out…”is modified as “With some generality, it would cause the harmful consequences when BTM system is interfered [9], as list in Table 1.”
Point 12: Numerous times in the paper, we have something like this : “radiation coupling module and conductive coupling module and inductive coupling module”. This kind of sentence is better like this : radiation, conductive and inductive coupling modules…”
Page 3 : received by receiving antenna of on-board antenna ???
Page 7 : “impendence” => impedance
Page 8 : “the disturbance would be coupled with the on-board antenna due to the on-board antenna…”
Page 12 : “after decoding by the decoding “
page 13 : “there is one thing need to be note”
Response 12: Thanks, we modified all the problem you mentioned. And the related problems in the paper have also been modified.
“radiation coupling module and conductive coupling module and inductive coupling module” is modified as “radiation, conductive and inductive coupling modules…”
“received by receiving antenna of on-board antenna…” is modified as “A test data package will transmit by radio-frequency energy transmitting antenna through route 1 and received by on-board antenna, as shown in Figure 2 (a).”
“impendence” is modified as impedance
“the disturbance would be coupled with the on-board antenna due to the on-board antenna…” is modified as “As a loop antenna, the on-board antenna gets the location information and other useful messages transmitted from balise by receiving the magnetic field signal. Meanwhile, the disturbance would be coupled to the on-board antenna too.”
“after decoding by the decoding ” is modified as “The information will be transferred to the Automatic Train Protection (ATP) system after decoding.”
“there is one thing need to be note” is modified as “Significantly, the useful signal levels are different in these two functions, shown in Figure 16, thus the sensitive disturbance levels should be calculated separately.”
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The new version of the manuscript is now better and ready to be accepted (but the English language can still be improved (I guess this will be done during the production of the paper after its final acceptance).
Three minor comments which does not require a new round of review
- “when the antenna disconnects” => when the antenna is disconnected
- Fig 18 : the red curve is not averaged. So, this curve will be different for each measurement (this should be explained to the reader).
- Fig 19 : my question was “what means the word massage?” It is not message?
Author Response
Point 1: “when the antenna disconnects” => when the antenna is disconnected
Response 1: Thanks. We modify it and check the verbs in the manuscript.
Point 2: Fig 18 : the red curve is not averaged. So, this curve will be different for each measurement (this should be explained to the reader).
Response 2: Thanks. We change the sentence as “If the exhaust system is powered off, the disturbance level is around 40dBμV at both 3.95MHz and 4.512MHz for this field test.”
Point 3: Fig 19 : my question was “what means the word massage?” It is not message?
Response 3: Thanks. It is message. We modify it in fig. 19.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
